dismissed EB-1A Case: Scientific Research

· , 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
Invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE:
JUL 20 20ftFFICE : TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 20l)() 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~
DtJitltk., 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on January 21, 2010, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of 
the beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the beneficiary's "sustained national or international 
acclaim" and present "extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through 
evidence of a one-time achievement, specifically a major, internationally recognized award. 
Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at 
least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility 
requirements. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the beneficiary meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if --
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, 
arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to 
continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USClS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 IOlst Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29,1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. [d. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the 
following ten categories of evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles m the field, Jn 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
Page 4 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USc/S, 596 F.3d I I 15 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. I With respect to the criteria 
at 8 CF.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of therirl field of endeavor," 
8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.C § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at I 119. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 FJd 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel, substantive, or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
II. Translations 
While not addressed by the director in his decision, the record of proceeding reflects that the 
petitioner submitted numerous foreign language documents without any English language 
translations, as well as some non-certified English language translations. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b) provides in pertinent part: 
(3) Translations. Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator 
has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he 
or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
As cited above, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) specifically requires that any foreign 
language document that is submitted to USCIS must be accompanied by a full and certified 
English language translation. Because the petitioner failed to comply with the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. §103.2(b)(3), the AAO cannot determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's 
claims. Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this 
proceeding. 
III. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on December 4, 2009, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a vice president in marketing and advertising. The petitioner has 
submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recof(nized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director found that the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary's eligibility for this 
criterion. At the time of the original filing of the petition, counsel argued the beneficiary's 
eligibility based on a "fclertificate for [the beneficiary's] participation as __ 
••• ~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~ •••••••••••••• ,' which w~ 
the 2002 [emphasis addedl." A review of the record of proceeding reflects that 
the petitioner submitted a certificate from Plan B* reflecting: 
2. The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 6 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 lei) requires "[ dlocumentation of the 
alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence 
in the field of endeavor [emphasis added]." to the beneficiary's submitted curriculum 
vitae, the beneficiary was employed b from 2000 - 2004. The 
petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that a certificate from Plan 
B* acknowledging the beneficiary's participation equates to a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. In fact, the certificate appears to be an 
inter-company acknowledgment rather than a nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award for excellence. 
while the certificate indicates that the advertising campaign o,~ •••••••• 
wards in March 2002, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary 
evidence reflecting that the beneficiary won a Producto Award, As the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R, § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[dlocumentation of the alien's receipt" of prizes 
or awards, the submission of a certificate from the beneficiary's previous employer 
acknowledging her participation on a campaign that won an award is insufficient to demonstrate 
that the beneficiary received a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in 
the field. Further, the AAO cannot conclude that an award that was not specifically presented to 
the beneficiary is tantamount to her receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized award. 
It cannot suffice that the beneficiary was one member of a large group that earned collective 
recognition. Moreover, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i) provides that the non-existence 
or unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. According to the same 
regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or carmot be 
obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary evidence is 
demonstrated to be unavail~ the petitioner rely on affidavits. In this 
submitted a certificate from_ indicating that an advertising campaign won a 
Award in 2002. The petitioner failed to submit primary evidence of the 2002 
A ward, or evidence that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained. 
petitioner failed to comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(2), and the AAO will not 
consider the petitioner's secondary evidence. 
In addition, the petitioner failed to demonstrate a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in On appeal, counsel argues 
that "this award is presented by and in the leading economic and business 
magazine in Venezuela." The AAO is not persuaded that awards or prizes from leading 
magazines in the field automatically equates to nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field. In fact, counsel failed to establish that_ is the leading 
economic and business magazine in Venezuela. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, 
the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Mafler 
of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
1980). 
Page 7 
Although the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted an article, as well as 
were not translated pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), from 
reflectin~istory of the magazine, the article fails to reflect any 
an award from _ is considered a nationally or internationally recognized 
award for excellence in the field of endeavor, and the petitioner failed to submit 
independent, objective evidence beyond _own website demonstrating 
a leading economic and business magazine in Venezuela, as claimed by counsel. 
Similarly, on appeal, counsel argues that the beneficiary "was the Planning and Strategy Director 
for four advertising campaigns that were finalists for the ANDA [Asociacion Nacional de 
Anunciantes 1 Excellence Awards. . .. Although, she did not win, the fact that she was 
nominated four times in four years reveals that she reached national recognition at the very top 
level in Venezuelan advertising [emphasis added]." A review of the record of proceeding 
reflects that the petitioner submitted four certificates from Plan B* acknowledging the 
beneficiary's participation in campaigns that were finalists for the ANDA Awards. The 
petition~r failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that the certificates from 
Plan B* acknowledging the beneficiary'S participation equate to nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. Again, the certificates appear to be inter­
company acknowledgment rather than nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence. 
Moreover, the 1''sl.!!1.!:!!.!!IT 
indicating that obtained "recognitions as a finalist in the 
ANDA Awards" four times, the letter fails to establish that the beneficiary received any AND A 
Awards. Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires 
"[ d locumentation of the alien's receipt" of prizes or awards. As the documentary evidence fails 
to reflect that any of the ANDA Awards were presented to the beneficiary, it cannot suffice that 
the beneficiary was one member of a large group that earned collective recognition. Even if the 
petitioner demonstrated that the beneficiary received any of the ANDA Awards, which it clearly 
has not, the letter from only reflects that Plan B* was a finalist four times. The 
petitioner failed to establish that being a finalist or being nominated equates to receiving a 
~or internationally recognized award or prize for excellence in the field. In fact, _ 
_ indicated in another letter that ANDA Awards are Golden, Silver, or Bronze. As the 
petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has ever received a Golden, Silver, or Bronze 
ANDA Award, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that Plan B*'s nominations and finalist 
results meet the plain language of this regulatory criterion. Notwithstanding, although the 
petitioner submitted documentary evidence about the history of the ANDA Awards from 
ANDA's website and yearbooks for the ANDA Awards for 1996-1997, 1997-1998, and 1999-
2000, as well as an article from Producto regarding the coverage of the ANDA Awards in 
November 1999, the petitioner failed to submit sufficient independent, objective evidence 
reflecting that the ANDA Awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in 
the field. The AAO notes that the petitioner submitted several foreign language documents 
without any English language translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
Page 8 
Furthermore, at the initial filing of the np';';c.n 
based on the submission of one share of 
A review of the stock certificate reflects that it was awarded 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
who stated: 
In recognition of her work and that of her firm, 
presented I the beneficiary 1 and her firm 
Miami, a symbolic recognition awarded 
individuals/organizations which have done exemplary work to make Miami a 
better place to live, work and play. 
Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires 
"[dlocumentation of the alien's receipt" of prizes or awards. As the stock certificate reflects that 
the petitioner is the owner of one significant share of stock, the record fails to reflect that the 
beneficiary received an award or prize from GMCC. Regardless, the petitioner failed to submit 
any documentary evidence demonstrating that a stock certificate from GMCC is a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. In fact, as ••••• 
indicates, the stock certificate is symbolic in recognizing the petitioner's contributions to the 
Miami area; it is not reflective of a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence in the field. 
Similarly, the petitioner submitted a letter addressed to the beneficiary from 
Chairman of the GMCC Top 100 Minority Award, indicating that the petitioner "has been 
selected by the [GMCCj as one of South Florida's Top 100 Minority Businesses." The petitioner 
also submitted a certificate indicating that the petitioner was awarded a Top 100 Minority 
Business Award on March 18, 2008. The AAO notes that the petitioner submitted an article 
from America Sin Mordaza without an English language translation as required by the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Again, the record reflects that the petitioner received the award rather 
than the beneficiary. Moreover, the award appears to be for businesses in the South Florida area 
rather than a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field. 
~titi,ont~r submitted an email from 
indicating that the beneficiary 
reserved for a Hispanic leader 
in the community who has made a positive impact in the South Florida community." The 
petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's nomination resulted in any prizes or awards. 
let alone nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. In fact, as the 
Noche de Honor award is restricted to the South Florida community, it appears that it is a 
regional award rather than a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the 
field of endeavor. 
a letter from~, 
indicating that the beneficiary 
The petitioner also submitted some articles 
Page 9 
from websites regarding the Latinbiz Awards indicating that they honor "outstanding women in 
South Florida's " the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner 
reflects are limited to the South Florida community and are not 
reflective of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
There is no evidence demonstrating that the Latinbiz Awards are recognized beyond the South 
Florida community. 
Further, at the time of the original filing of the petItIOn, counsel argued the beneficiary's 
eligibility for this criterion based on the Proctor and Gamble award and stated: 
September 28, 1993 Proctor and Gamble Certificate awarded to [the beneficiary] 
for achieving the "Excellency Challenge" awarded for her remarkable 
performance as a student ... and information on the award. The "Excellency 
Challenge" award is presented each year to the top 40 students from the most 
prestigious Venezuelan Universities. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate reflecting that the beneficiary was awarded the Excellency 
Challenge and screenshots from htlp:llpg.newsware.net indicating that the program "recognizes 
students with excellent academic performance, innitiative I sici, and leadership skills." The AAO 
notes that the petitioner submitted several screenshots in a foreign language without any English 
language translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Notwithstanding, 
academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. As such, 
academic scholarships, student awards, postdoctoral fellowships, and financial aid awards cannot 
be considered nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards in the beneficiary's field 
of endeavor. The documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner fails to establish that the 
beneficiary's academic award is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence in the field. Moreover, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence 
beyond to demonstrate that the academic award is recognized nationally or 
<OA'.<CH""..'- in the field of endeavor. Academic awards and honors received 
while preparing for a vocation fall substantially short of constituting a national or international 
prize or award for recognition in the field. 
on counsel that the beneficiary's "marketing campaign __ 
award for best prepaid program marketing." However 
counsel submitted a screenshot from http://paybefore.com reflecting that the 2010_ 
Awards winners would be announced on February 22, 2010. The petition was filed on 
December 4,2009. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 c.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), 
(12); Matter of Katighak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg!. Comm'r. 1971). A petition cannot be 
approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of' 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter of' 
Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (B IA 1981), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into 
being only subsequent to the of a " Id. at 176. the 
cvidence reflects that 
__ were nominated for rather than 
the beneficiary. Regardless, counsel failed to submit any documentary evidence establishing that 
Bonus Almentacion won an award, let alone a nationally or internationally recognized award for 
excellence in the field. The unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not 
evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 
183,188-89 n.6 (1984). 
The AAO notes here that on appeal counsel indicated in a footnote: 
I The beneficiary's I marketing/advertising carnparg:n 
was nominated for 
(Unfortunately, the evidence reflecting this 
Promax awards is the highest accolade for promotion and marketing professionals 
for any given year, and the BOA award is the ultimate accolade for outstanding 
design in media. 
Again, counsel failed to support her assertions regarding the beneficiary's nominations for the 
Promax and BOA awards with documentary evidence. Nevertheless, even if the beneficiary was 
nominated for a Promax and BOA award, counsel failed to demonstrate that such nominations 
equate to nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
As discussed, the plain language of this regulatory criterion specifically requires that the 
beneficiary receive prizes or awards and that they be nationally or internationally recognized for 
excellence in her field. The burden is on the petitioner to meet every element of this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary has received any nationally 
or internationall y recognized prizes or awards for excellence in her field of endeavor consistent 
with the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(i). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
In the director's decision, he found that the petJtlOner failed to establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility for this criterion. At the time of the original filing of the petition, counsel claimed the 
beneficiary's eligibility based on membership with The Com Vort Group, the eMarketing 
Association, and the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA). Although on appeal counsel 
only addressed membership with The ComVort Group, the AAO will also address the 
beneficiary's membership with the eMarketing Association and the PRSA. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(ii) requires "ldlocumentation or 
the alien's membership in associations in the field for which is classification is sought, which 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields." In order to demonstrate that membership in 
an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must show that the association requires 
Page II 
outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. Membership 
requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or 
current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not 
constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not 
determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The aims to add in middle sized, independent and owner­
operated companies that are considered to be the top agencies in their countries. 
To qualify, these companies must be specialized advertising and marketing firms 
that can bring to the table up to the minute information of the specific 
characteristics of their market, competition situations and detailed knowledge of 
'-'-'-'-~~ of sophisticated target groups. Additionally, as the focus of The 
is on owner-managed companies, the previous experience, 
outstanding skills of the managing partners are the key issues for 
selecting current and potential prospects all around the globe. 
While at one of my main tasks was to research the 
Venezuelan market in order to present the prospects to our Board of Directors. 
My research lead me to rthe petitioner] as the leading independent agency in that 
market. 
Former 
The petitioner also submitted screenshots from establishing that the 
petitioner is part However, the plain language of the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "I d]ocumentation of the alien's membership in associations 
[emphasis added]." The beneficiary's relationship as a partner with the petitioner is insufficient 
to demonstrate the beneficiary's membership in associations in the field. In fact, membership 
with is comprised of "independently owned agencies" and "companies" 
. • I I • vidual membership. While the petitioner, as a business, is a member of The 
, the beneficiary's affiliation to the who is a member is insufficient to 
demonstrate that she is a member of 
Notwithstanding the above, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
provides that membership requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. A review of the 
screenshots reflects that "Itlo become a member of __ an agency must pass a 
rigorous screening process, to ensure that the ~eets _ high 
standards." However, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence reflecting the 
"rigorous screening process," so as to establish that it requires outstanding achievements of its 
members. Furthermore, while indicated that the petitioner' s mf~mlbel'ship 
presented to the "Board of Directors," the petitioner failed to demonstrate 
Page 12 
of directors is comprised of "recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields," so as to establish that they judge outstanding achievements. 
Regarding the the petitioner . a certificate reflecting that the 
beneficiary "[h]as demonstrated competency and the board of directors certified 
the beneficiary as an _ in 2009 based on her "completion of all certification 
requirements." The petitioner submitted screenshots from www.emarketingassociation.com 
reflecting that membership is based on successfully completing online courses and paying fees. 
As there is no evidence indicating that membership with eMarketing Association requires 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields, the petitioner's membership with the eMarketing 
Association fails to meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
petiti'Jm:r submitted a certificate reflecting that the beneficiary was 
elected in July 2009. The petitioner also submitted background 
u".'WJU'O integrity and ethics requirements for PRSA. However, 
the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence regarding membership requirements, so 
as to establish that membership with PRSA requires outstanding achievements of its members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. According to 
PRSA's website, which was obtained from documentary evidence provided by the petitioner, 
membership is based on the length of professional experience and the payment of membership 
fees.3 For example, as a member like the beneficiary, an individual must have two or more years 
of experience in public relations and pay $225 in annual fees. Clearly, membership with PRSA 
does not require outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In sum, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary is a member of The Com Vort Group, 
and the petitioner failed to demonstrate that membership with The Com Vort Group, the 
eMarketing Association, and the PRSA require outstanding achievements of its members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields pursuant to the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other mL~jor media, relatin/? to the alien's work in the field for which 
classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of 
the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director found that the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary's eligibility for this 
criterion. On appeal, counsel argued: 
.~ See hllp://w\v\v.prsa.org/JoinUs/IVlember~hip Types/. Accessed on July 5,2011, and incorporated into the record 
of proceeding. 
Page 13 
The officer found that [the beneficiary 1 did not meet the printed press and media 
criteria, as the articles submitted were not primarily about the beneficiary. 
Rather, they were about her advertising/marketing campaigns and provided quotes 
from [the beneficiary 1 describing her basis for same. As such, there articles 
reveal I the beneficiary's 1 extraordinary ability in marketing/advertising. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(iii) requires "[p lublished material 
about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the 
alien's work in the field for which classification is sought." In general, in order for published 
material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the beneficiary and, as stated in the 
regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.
4 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that 
"[ s luch evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation." 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted the following 
documentation: 
1. 
2. 
3. 
An article entitled, 
Producto; 
An article on';"0,,1 
author, Producto; 
A screenshot entitled, 
unidentified author, www.producto.com; 
June 1998, unidentified author, 
unidentified date, unidentified 
unidentified date, 
4. A screenshot entitled, 
September 2001, unidentified author, www.producto.com; 
5. November 22, 1999, 
6. 
March 2002, unidentified author, Publicidad & Mercadeo; 
4 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. f-or 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County. 
Virginia, for instance. cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 14 
7. An article entitled, October 2009, 
unidentified author, Publicidad & Mercadeo; 
8. October 18, 2009,_ 
9. A snippet entitled, 
unidentified source; and 
unidentified date, unidentified author, 
10. Several articles from Creativity in June 2009. 
Regarding items I and 2, the petitioner failed to include the date and/or author of the material 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, a review of the articles fails 
to reflect that they are published material about the beneficiary relating to her work. In fact, 
regarding item I, the article is about numerous advertisements in soccer. Although the 
beneficiary was quoted one time in the article, it is clearly not about the beneficiary relating to 
her work. Regarding item 2, the article is and the 
beneficiary is never mentioned in the article. As such, the article is not about the beneficiary 
relating to her work. Further, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence 
establishing that _ is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
Regarding items 3 and 4, the petitioner failed to include the date and/or author of the material 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Regarding item 3, the screenshot is 
about the history of rather than the beneficiary relating to her work. In fact, the 
beneficiary is not even mentioned in the screenshot. Likewise, regarding item 4, the screenshot 
is about companies advertising in sports. There is no mention of the beneficiary in the 
screenshot. Regardless, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating 
that is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. The 
AAO is not persuaded that articles posted on the Internet from a printed publication are 
automatically considered major media. In today's world, many newspapers and media outlets, 
regardless of size and distribution, post at least some of their stories on the Internet. To ignore 
this reality would be to render the "major media" requirement meaningless. However, the AAO 
is not persuaded that international accessibility by itself is a realistic indicator of whether a given 
website is "major media." 
Regarding item 5, the petitioner failed to include the author of the article pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Further, although the beneficiary is mentioned one time 
as one of the moderators of the London Festival, the article is not about the beneficiary relating 
to her work. In addition, the petitioner submitted screenshots from Wikipedia regarding EI 
Nacional. However, as there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this 
open, user-edited Internet site, the AAO will not assign weight to information from Wikipedia. 
Page 15 
See Laamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008).5 The petitioner failed 
to submit any other documentary evidence regarding El Nacional, so as to establish that it is a 
professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
Regarding items 6 and 7, the petitioner failed to include the authors of the material pursuant to 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, regarding item 6, the article is about the 
new campaign image of El Nacional. While the beneficiary is quoted one time in the article, the 
article is not about the beneficiary relating to her work. Regarding item 7, the article is about the 
Electronic Benefits Transfer Card rather than the beneficiary relating to her work. In fact, the 
beneficiary is not even mentioned in the article. Articles that are not about the beneficiary do not 
meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Accord Negro-Plumpe v. Okin,2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ 
at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the 
actor). In addition, while the petitioner submitted a screenshot from Publicidad & Mercadeo's 
website, the petitioner failed to submit any independent, objective evidence regarding Puhlicidad 
& Mercadeo. Furthermore, while the petitioner highlighted that Publicidad & Mercadeo has a 
"[mlonthly circulation and is present at on national scale," the AAO is not persuaded that such 
claims are consistent with a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
Regarding item 8, the blog is about various issues and announcements including the posting that 
the beneficiary was awarded However, the blog is not about the 
beneficiary relating to her work. In addition, the petitioner submitted screenshots from 
Wikipedia regarding El Universal. However, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary 
evidence demonstrating that llllp:l/blogs.eluniversal.com is a professional or major trade 
publication or other major media. 
Regarding item 9, the petitioner failed to include the date and author of the material pursuant to 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(iii). Further, while the snippet indicates that the 
advertisement campaign was developed by Plan B*, there is no mention of the beneficiary. As 
such, the snippet is not published material about the beneficiary relating to her work. Also, the 
petitioner failed to indicate where the snippet was published, so as to demonstrate that is was 
published in a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
5 See also the online content from http://co.wikipedia.org/wikiM'ikipedia: General disclaimer, accessed on July 5. 
20 I I, and copy incorporated into the record of proceeding is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to 
develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone 
with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has 
necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, 
accurate or reliable information. . .. Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information 
found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or 
altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant 
fields. 
Page 16 
Regarding item 10, as indicated above, the petitioner submitted several articles from Creativity. 
Notwithstanding that the petitioner failed to indicate the publication date of Creativity and the 
authors of the articles, a review of the article fails to mention the beneficiary and are not 
published material about the beneficiary relating to her work. In addition, the petitioner failed to 
submit any documentary evidence establishing that Creativity is a professional or major trade 
publication or other major media. 
With the exception of item 8, the petitioner failed to include the date and/or author for any of the 
submitted documentation pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, the 
petitioner failed to demonstrate that any of the documentary evidence reflected published 
material about the beneficiary relating to her work. Finally, the petitioner failed to establish that 
the material was published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
In the director's decision, he found that the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary's 
reflects that the petitioner 
stated: 
A review of the record of prclceedin 
In name of the IESA Entrepreneurs Centre and the academic team of the Program 
for Entrepreneurs of the IESA, we want to once more thank to [the petitioner 1 
and, specially, you for your valuable contribution to the 2006 and 2007 editions of 
this Program. 
Your habitual presence as a jury in the selection of the best business plans 
elaborated by the participants of this program, as well as the prize that your ad 
agency has given to some of the future entrepreneurs by giving them a free 
consulting of marketing and image for six months, are invaluable contributions to 
the stimulation of successful entrepreneurial activity in Venuzuela. 
As you know, the Entrepreneurs Centre of the IESA organizes this program with 
the objective of offering tools to create business plans and to impulse the success 
of new Venezuelan businesses. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a screenshot from IESA's website indicating that "IESA 
trains managers in social responsibility, entrepreneurship, and community leadership on an equal 
footing to quality standards applied by top management schools." The AAO notes that the 
Page 17 
petitioner also submitted foreign language documents without any English language translations 
as required by the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[e]vidence of the 
alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same 
or an allied . which classification is sought [emphasis added]." Although the 
letter from indicated that the beneficiary served as a jury member, the 
petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary's service "in the selection of the best 
business plans elaborated by the participants of this program" is in the same or an allied field of 
specification for which classification is sought. The petitioner's field of expertise is in 
advertising and marketing. However, the letter from fails to indicate that 
the beneficiary served as a judge of the work of others in her field. There is insufficient 
information demonstrating that selecting business plans is in the same or an allied field of 
specification in the beneficiary's field of advertising and marketing. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Executive Director of the 
Venezuelan Federation of Advertising Agencies (FEV AP) who stated: 
I The beneficiary 1 . participated as a ponent [sic J in the event 
1999 edition." She participated in the 
a yearl y advertising event of the [FEV AP], with the 
only objective of contributing to the professional development of the new 
generations. 
The petitioner also submitted documentary evidence regarding background information about 
"Creative Storm 99," including foreign language documents without any English language 
translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). While the letter from 
FEV AP indicates that the beneficiary participated and "Advertising in the 
New Millennium," there is no indication that the as a judge of the work 
of others. In fact, it appears from the foreign language documentation that the beneficiary was a 
speaker at Moreover, the record fails to reflect that a "ponent" equates to a 
As such, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary's participation at 
and "Advertising in the New Millennium" meets the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The petitioner submitted a letter addressed to the beneficiary from_, Partner at Brand 
Blaze, who stated: 
Awards 2009 Committee is seeking an official logo to 
use in the Marketing Visionary Awards (MV A) as part of its activities celebrating 
this highly publicized first time event, which is scheduled to take place on April 
28th , 20 I O. As you are aware, the Chamber has very strict policies regarding who 
can serve as a judge or part of a panel, leading us to only have the top 
representatives of industries as our judges. 
Due to your extraordinary skills in marketing, the Committee is delighted to invite 
you to be one of the judges of the MV A Logo Contest. . .. In addition to judging 
the Logo Contest, we hope that we can count on you to be one of the five 
panelists who will select winners for the MV As. 
The petitioner submitted a letter 
November 6,2009, who stated: 
As the Marketing Chair, [the beneficiary] has demonstrated a great ability to 
manage an extended group of top professionals (from C-Level to Managers and 
Business Owners) that work under her directions to accomplish the objectives that 
I the beneficiary 1 presented and established at the GMCC 2009 Goals Conference. 
Two of the key goals are to create and produce a marketing awards event that will 
recognize individuals and institutions of the South Florida marketing, advertising 
and public relations community, and second is to develop a series of workshops 
that will educate members of the latest marketing tools. 
With I the beneficiary's J leadership and energy both of these goals are already 
bearing fruit. With assistance from the team she has already developed the rules 
and regulations as well as the nominations forms for the Marketing Visionary 
Awards which will be presented on April 28th 2010. Because of her extensive 
experience the group also appointed her President of the Jury for the awards logo 
contest, and se r sic] will also be responsible for selecting the panel of jurors that 
will have the responsibility to select the finalists and winners for the Marketing 
Visionary Awards. 
dated 
As the plain language of this regulatory criterion specifically requires "the alien's participation ... 
as the judge of the work of others," the mere request to serve as a judge without evidence of actually 
judging the work of others is insufficient to meet the plain language of the regulation. In fact, there 
is no evidence establishing that the beneficiary actually served as a judge for the Marketing 
Visionary Awards. Although the beneficiary developed the rules and regulations for the contest, 
as well as appointed president of the jury, the record fails to reflect that she served as a judge of 
the work of others for GMCC prior to the filing of the petition on December 4, 2009. Eligibility 
must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of {zummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. That decision further 
provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. at 114, that USCIS cannot "consider facts 
that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." [d. at 176. 
addressed to the beneficiary from •••••• 
inviting the beneficiary to be a guest speaker for 
Page 19 
an E-Marketing Master Class during the first quarter of 2010. The petllloner failed to 
demonstrate that a request to be a guest speaker equates to judging the work of others pursuant to 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Further, while the class was 
scheduled to take place after the filing of the petition, there is no evidence that the beneficiary 
actually spoke to the class. 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary served 
as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought at the time of the filing of the petition consistent with the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
In the director's decision, he concluded that the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility for this criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
requires "Ielvidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field." In compliance with Kazarian, the AAO 
must focus on the plain language of the regulatory criteria. 596 F.3d at 1121. Here, the evidence 
must be reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of original business-related contributions "of 
major significance in the field." 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that at the time of the original filing of the petition, 
the petitioner claimed the beneficiary's eligibility based on several advertising projects by 
beneficiary. The petitioner submitted copies of presentations for "Bonus Alimentacion," "Plata 
ServiTebca," "Banco Venezolano de Credito," "Provis Alimentacion," "Nike Venezuela," "EI 
Nacional," and "CMT." While the covers of the presentations reflect that they were prepared by 
the beneficiary, the petitioner failed to submit English translations as required by the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
Regarding "Bonus Alimentacion," the petIllOner submitted two screenshots from 
NovoPayment's website describing the Bonus Alimentacion card, as well as the purpose, 
attributes, and success factors of the card. The petitioner also submitted numerous documents 
without any English language translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
However, the petitioner did submit a single translation for a snippet from Producto Onlinc 253 
that announced the launching of the Bonus card. Finally, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
, President and CEO of NovoPayment, who stated: 
I have worked in collaboration with [the beneficiary] since 2004, in several 
projects and for different industries which include Banking, Corporate Social 
Responsibilities and more recently in Cads & Payments. Her enthusiasm, 
outstanding professional skills and brightest ideas has been a constant 
Page 20 
characteristic of her work and has created a strong link with [the beneficiary's] 
firm, which provides us services in the area of brand building, advertising, 
communication and marketing for an important portfolio of brands (Bonus, Plata, 
Provis). These brands hold today an important position in the prepaid cards space 
in Latin America and the Caribbean and have been awarded with several 
recognitions. 
praised the beneficiary for her professional skills, she failed to indicate 
the significance of the beneficiary's work with Bonus Alimentacion. For example,_ 
failed to demonstrate that the success of Bonus Alimentacion was based on the beneficiary's 
marketing and advertising of the card. The documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner 
fails to establish that the beneficiary's work on the Bonus card has been of major significance in 
the field as a whole rather than limited to NovoPayment. The petitioner failed to demonstrate 
how the beneficiary's contributions to Bonus Alimentacion affected the field beyond 
NovoPayment. 
Regarding the petItIOner again submitted foreign language 
r"~:U"'llUH at 8 C.F.R. documents any English language translations as re(juired 
§ 103.2(b)(3). The petitioner also submitted a document 
that won and 
reflecting 
bac:kgl:OUlld irlformation about the 
Plata card. In addition, the petitioner submitted two translated articles entitled, "With 
Anticipated Plata" and "In a Direct, Electronic Way" that discussed the 
petitioner submitted a screenshot from NovoPayment's website describing iiiiiiiii.iII 
Finally, the petitioner submitted numerous emails between the beneficiary and 
evidencing the beneficiary's work on the advertising project. 
While the documentary evidence demonstrates that the beneficiary worked on the advertising 
campaign the documentary evidence fails to reflect the impact or influence 
of the beneficiary's contributions to the field as a whole. Although 
_ for the card, there is no evidence establishing 
the beneficiary's contributions to the advertising aspect of the nrc)(h,c( 
failed to establish that the beneficiary's contributions went hf"vmlri 
major significance to the field. 
on 
petitioner 
and were of 
Regarding "Banco Venezolano de Credito," the petitioner submitted two screenshots from Banco 
Venezolano de Credito's website reflecting the history of the and a screens hot from 
Wikipedia. The petitioner also submitted numerous emails from evidencing the 
beneficiary's work on the advertising project for the bank. 
Again, while the petitioner demonstrated that the beneficiary worked on a project for Banco 
Venezolano de Credito, there is no evidence establishing that the beneficiary has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. It appears that the scope of the beneficiary's 
contributions were limited to Banco Venezolano de Credito and are not reflective of original 
Page 21 
contributions of major significance in the field pursuant to the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C,F,R, § 204,5(h)(3)(v), 
Regarding "Provis Alimentacion," the petitioner submitted a 
announcing a new joint venture with 
prepaid card, Although the petitioner language document indicating that it 
the press release was prepared by the beneficiary, the petitioner failed to submit an English 
language translation as required by the regulation at 8 C.ER. § 103.2(b)(3). The documentary 
evidence submitted by the petitioner fails to demonstrate that the beneficiary has made any 
original contributions, let alone original contributions of major significance in the field. The 
record fails to demonstrate the beneficiary's contributions to the Provis Alime~ 
__ considered of major significance in the field beyond __ 
Regarding "Nike Venezuela," the petitioner submitted a posting on www,producto,com and a 
snippet from an unidentified source indicating that the local communication of Nike will be the 
responsibility of_ Moreover, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
Former Product Line Manager Inversiones Venathletic, who stated: 
In 2001, Nike, Inc. decided to create its own advertising campaign in Venezuela. 
As such, we requested proposals from some of Venezuela's top advertising 
agencies, including Plan B*. The most creative and business proposal from Plan 
B*, created by I the beneficiary J, was the most simplistic, but stylistic proposal 
that we received. The idea behind the campaign was "Yo soy" or "I am." It 
featured photographs of a Venezuelan woman athlete performing a physical 
activity with the slogan "I am pure energylinvincible, I am." 
* * * 
The advertising campaign created by [the beneficiary] for Nike was a success, as 
it helped us to significantly increase our market share in the Venezuelan market. 
In fact, it was the most successful marketing campaigns Nike launched in Latin 
America. 
Based on letter, the benef~buted to the success of Nike's marketing 
campaigns in Latin America. However,_ failed to indicate that the beneficiary has 
made original contributions of major significance to the field as a whole. _ failed to 
demonstrate how the beneficiary's contributions for Nike have been of major significance to the 
field. 
Regarding "El Nacional," the pehtIOner submitted an article entitled, "With a New Image 
Campaign, El Nacional Counters the Attacks," from Publicidad & Mercadeo reflecting that Plan 
B * was the agency responsible for the advertisement campaign in changing the image of EI 
Nacional. The petitioner also submitted an article that was not accompanied by an English 
Page 22 
translation as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), as well as screenshots from 
Wikipedia regarding EI Nacional. 
The documentary evidence submitted by the petitIOner fails to reflect the impact of the 
beneficiary's work in the field beyond working on an advertising campaign for El Nacional. 
Merely submitting documentary evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary worked on a project 
is insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion without documentary evidence reflecting 
that the beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance in the field consistent 
with the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(v). 
Regarding CMT, the petitioner submitted an article entitled, 
indicating that the new image of CMT would be supported by The petitioner also 
submitted a document without any English language translation as required by the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's contributions to the 
advertising campaign of CMT have been of major significance to the field, let alone to CMT. 
Again, simply submitting evidence that the beneficiary has worked on an advertising campaign 
fails to demonstrate eligibility for this criterion unless the documentation reflects that the 
beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted documentary evidence reflecting that she worked on the GMCC 
new brand design program. Further, the petitioner submitted the September 2008 World City 
Magazine reflecting that GMCC chose her design. The documentary evidence submitted by the 
petitioner fails to demonstrate that the beneficiary's contributions in the design of the new 
GMCC logo have been of major significance in the field. Once again, while the beneficiary 
contributed to the GMCC new design, there is no evidence of the significance of this 
contribution in the field beyond GMCC. 
On appeal, counsel also argues the beneficiary's eligibility based on recommendation letters that 
were initially submitted as evidence of the beneficiary's eligibility as comparable evidence 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)( 4). While the recommendation letters praise the 
beneficiary for her work in advertising and marketing for specific advertising campaigns, they 
fail to indicate that her contributions are of major significance in the field. The letters provide 
only general statements without offering any specific information to establish how the 
beneficiary's work has been of major significance in the field. For instance: 
My business starts out with one product, i.e., a 
disposable urination funnel for girls and women called Six months 
have past working hand in hand with Aristides and lthe beneficiary]. At all times 
I have found Ithe petitioner] to be dependable, reliable, enthusiastic and hard 
working. . .. I am proud to acknowledge we now have a commercial image and a 
solid communication strategy for the company, a document supporting the brand 
strategy, and first steps towards BTL advertisement. But of foremost importance, 
-Page 23 
we have launched _ into the local markets (pharmacies and drug stores) 
and women are buying it. . .. Result of this invaluable assessment, I have decided 
to become a client of Ithe petitionerl. I can confirm that [the petitioner I has 
provided my business with excellent support in the areas of branding, marketing 
and communications. Their work has been a major factor in our transformation 
from idea to business. 
Although indicated that her product, _ was launched in local markets 
and she decided to become a client of the petitioner, she failed to indicate 
contributions of major significance in the field made the beneficiary. In fact, 
discusses the impact of the petitioner on her product and business rather than the beneficiary's 
original contributions of major significance in the field. The letter fails to establish, for example, 
that the beneficiary's contributions have 
influenced the field as a whole rather than being limited to •••••• 
, stated: 
When in 2008 I created and prc,duced 
beneficiary 1 - without any doubt - for developing the 
for the project. ... And [the beneficiary] developed (and 
donated) an exceptional promotional campaign that made this effort a very 
successful initiative for the foundation and for the artists that participated in the 
Auction. She demonstrated the superior talent and the unique creative thinking 
capability for helping me to promote and market the event that was presented in 
the exceptional frame of the Art Basel Miami Beach, the most important art show 
in the United States, a cultural and social highlight for the Americas. 
I am launching a new product line of utilitarian art that I expect to sell worldwide. 
Due to her exceptional and proven abilities as a marketing expert, an exceptional 
strategic content developer and a proven unique e-Marketer, I have selected [the 
beneficiary 1 for creating, developing and implementing the social media 
campaign for my one-of-a-kind products. Her exceptional capability to transform 
any brand into a successful trademark makes her the perfect and unique 
professional choice for helping me achieve my new challenge, to transform my 
recognized brand name into a digital trademark that can reach neo-pop lovers 
around the world. 
Similarly, _ discussed the beneficiary's assistance in a fundraising campaign for his 
business without establishing that such assistance has influenced the field, so as to demonstrate 
the beneficiary's original contributions of major significance in the field. Moreover, 
indicated that the beneficiary's "superior talent and the unique creative ~apability" 
helped him in promoting an event at Art Basel Miami Beach. However, _ failed to 
indicate how the beneficiary's talent and thinking can be considered original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Moreover, assuming the beneficiary's talent is unique, the 
Page 24 
classification sought was not designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given field. In fact, 
that issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien 
employment labor certification process. See Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N 
Dec. 215, 221 (Comm'r. 1998). Finally, while discussed his selection of the 
beneficiary in launching a new product line, the record fails to reflect that the beneficiary has 
contributed te ; advertising campaign, let alone that the beneficiary has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
With [the beneficiary's] Advertising Agencies she had managed several of the top 
accounts of the Venezuelan Market, without being part of the multinational's 
advertising groups and have reach the top of recognition and success. I have no 
doubt to define [the beneficiary] as an a [sic] extraordinary social 
communications specialist with an unique ability in business that makes her an 
exceptional professional of the marketing, communications and advertising arena. 
failed to explain how managing top accounts in Venezuela without being part of 
advertising groups can be considered an original contribution of major 
significance in the field. In addition, described the beneficiary's business skills 
and talents without establishing that such traits are original contributions of major significance in 
the field. The lack of specific information is not reflective of the beneficiary's original 
contributions and provides the AAO without any basis to gauge the significance of those 
contributions on the field. 
, stated: 
[The beneficiaryJ and her advertising and marketing firm,_developed the 
first e-mail marketing campaign for a TV station in Venezuela (CMT Preventa 
2001). This campaign was a huge success, and the first of its type in the 
Venezuelan market. This marketing initiative showed how [the beneficiary] 
views her job with any product. She truly understands who her audience is and 
who she is targeting. 
indicated that the beneficiary developed the first email marketing campaign for 
hO'we'ver he failed to discuss the significance of this contribution in the field. While •. 
•••• indicated that it was a "huge success," he provided no further information to establish 
that the beneficiary's advertising campaign, for example, has been widely implement throughout 
the field rather than limited to a single television station in Venezuela. 
Journalist, stated: 
Page 25 
been selected as one of the 12 best blogs in Venezuela and is part of a PhD thesis 
on in the Communications School of the University of Miami. __ 
••••• " is the story of a Venezuelan immigrant family that came to South 
Florida to pursue their dream of liberty, progress and safe life. Her posts and 
articles are read by thousands people all over the world. I am one of them. She 
has built a numerous virtual community that stimulates her to keep on writing. 
More than five hundred posts and ten thousand plus comments make her blog one 
of the most respected Spanish written blogs on the Internet. 
indicated that the beneficiary's blog "has been selected as one of the 12 best blogs 
in Venezuela." A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted a 
partial translation of a document stating: 
All the men and women that conforms the Blog's community in Venezuela and 
were willing to participate in the project. 
Men and women whom wrote, one or more blogs, Venezuelans, residents or not 
residents in the Country, foreign aliens that reside in Venezuela, which blogs are 
referred to Venezuela: 298 participants. 
Bloggers that resulted as the best Bloggers "Venezuelan Style": 12. 
Notwithstanding that the petitioner failed to submit a full translation as required by the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), there is no indication from the partial translation that supports. 
_ claim that the beneficiary's blog was "selected as one of the 12 best blogs in 
Venezuela." The AAO notes here that the petitioner submitted screenshots from 
reflecting that there were approximately 480 visitors to the beneficiary's blog. 
Moreover, the petitioner submitted screenshots from an unidentified website reflecting that the 
beneficiary's website had 5,120 comments. The petitioner also submitted screenshots from 
another website reflecting that the beneficiary's blog was linked 4,086 times to other blogs. It 
appears that exaggerated the number of comments that were posted on the 
beneficiary's blog as the documentary evidence reflects that the beneficiary had 5,120 comments 
compared to the "ten thousand plus" as claimed by Regardless, the AAO is not 
persuaded that a thesis program at a single institution and a blog that has a minimal following is 
demonstrative of an original contribution of major significance in the field. In today's world, it 
is common for bloggers, such as the beneficiary, to link other bloggers' websites to their own. 
The petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating the significance of the 
linkage of the beneficiary's website 4,086 times by others. The fact that the beneficiary has a 
personal blog and is accessible through the Internet does not establish that it has been of major 
significance in the field. The petitioner failed to distinguish the beneficiary's personal blog from 
the thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of other blogs posted on the Internet, so as to reflect 
an original contribution of major significance in the field. It is noted that the petitioner 
submitted samples of screenshots from other websites without any English language translations 
as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § J03.2(b)(3). While the beneficiary's blog does reflect 
Page 26 
an original contribution made by the beneficiary and that some people read her postings, the 
documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner falls far short in establishing that the 
beneficiary's blog has been of major significance in the field, It appears that the beneficiary's 
blog is her personal political commentary rather than her field of advertising and marketing, 
While those familiar with the beneficiary generally describe her as "extraordinary," 
"exceptional," and "professional," there is insufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that 
the beneficiary's work is of major significance, This regulatory criterion not only requires the 
beneficiary to make original contributions, the regulatory criterion also requires those 
contributions to be significant The AAO is not persuaded by vague, solicited letters that simply 
repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how the beneficiary's contributions have 
already influenced the field. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not 
satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof." The lack of supporting evidence gives the AAO no 
basis to gauge the significance of the beneficiary's contributions in the field as a whole rather 
than limited to businesses with whom the beneficiary has worked. 
Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter qt Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought !d. The submission of letters of support from the 
beneficiary's personal contacts is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate 
the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see 
also Matter (if V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008). Thus, the content of the writers' 
statements and how they became aware of the beneficiary's reputation are important 
considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in 
support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of 
original contributions of major significance. 
Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of 
the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the field [emphasis added]." The AAO must presume that the phrase 
"major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. Without additional, 
specific evidence showing that the beneficiary's work has been unusually influential, widely 
implemented, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, the AAO 
cannot conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence qt the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in pr(ifessional 
or major trade publications or other major media, 
D Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajfd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates. Inc. v. Meissner. 1997 WL 188942 at *S (S.D.N.Y.). 
Page 27 
The director found that the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary's eligibility 
criterion. A review of the record of proceeding reflects 
b'lnlllllrV for this criterion based on the beneficiary's 
and the petitioner submitted the following blogs 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e)vidence of the 
alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media [emphasis added)." In this case, the petitioner failed to submit any English 
language translations for any of the items above as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(3). As such, the petitioner failed to establish that any of the items meet the plain 
language of this regulatory . Furthermore, the petitioner 
submitted numerous screenshots but again failed to 
Qoc:um.cm fro~ 
is 
Page 28 
registered at " In addition to the AAO's discussion of the 
beneficiary's blog under the original contributions criterion, the certificate only reflects that the 
blog is a registered website and does not reflect that it is a professional or major trade publication 
or other major media. Again, the AAO is not persuaded that international accessibility by itself 
is a realistic indicator of whether a given website is "major media." 
documentary evidence reflects that items I - 4 were also 
published The petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence 
demonstrating that is a professional or major trade publication or other 
major media. Regarding items 5 - 12, the documentary evidence reflects that the blogs were also 
published Although the petitioner submitted a document entitled, 
the petitioner failed to submit an English language 
translation as required by the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § I03.2(b)(3). Therefore, the petitioner 
failed to establish that ' a professional or major trade publication or 
other major media. Regarding item 13, the failed to submit any documentary evidence 
demonstrating where the item was published, let alone that it was published in a professional or 
major trade publication or other major media. Finally, regarding item 14, the document reflects 
that it was also the petitioner failed to submit any 
documentary evidence reflecting that the website is a professional or major trade publication or 
other major media. 
The AAO notes that the petitioner submitted a screenshot entitled, New 
York University regarding terminology for blogs and websites. Specifically, the screenshot 
defined a blog as follows: 
A "blog" (short for "web log") is defined by the free encyclopedia Wikipedia as 
"a user-generated web site where entries are made in journal style and displayed 
in a reverse chronological order. Blogs often provide commentary or news on a 
particular subject, such as food, politics, or local news; some function as morc 
personal online diaries. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other 
blogs, web pages, and other media related to its topic. The ability for readers to 
leave comments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs. Blog 
can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog." 
The petitioner also submitted a screenshot from Wittenburg University regarding scholarly 
articles. Specifically, the screenshot reflects that scholarly articles "are usually published or 
sponsored by a professional society or association" and "articles are reviewed by experts before 
publication so the journals tend to be considered among the best in their fields." Furthermore, 
scholarly articles are written for professionals, professors, graduate students and "requires reader 
to be in touch with other research in the field." Finally, authors' credentials in the field are 
established such as institutional affiliation or degrees, and scholarly articles are "usually based 
on original research or new applications of others' research." Based on the recommendation 
letters that were submitted on behalf of the beneficiary, such as the letter from ••••••• 
the beneficiary's blog appears to be personal political commentary of the beneficiary and does 
Page 29 
not reflect any of the characteristics of scholarly articles defined by Wittenburg University. 
Moreover, as evidenced by the screenshot from New York University, a blog does not generally 
contain the characteristics of scholarly articles but reflects more of "personal online diaries." 
There is no evidence indicating that the beneficiary's blogs are published or sponsored by 
professional societies or associations, that the beneficiary's blogs are reviewed by experts before 
posting, that the beneficiary's blogs are based on original research or new applications of others' 
research, or are otherwise considered "scholarly." As such, the petitioner failed to establish that 
the beneficiary's blogs equate to scholarly articles consistent with the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a letter addressed to the beneficiary from 
~~;iary "to write a special 3-page article about 
and a maximum WOO-word column about 
your e-Marketing specialization" for the December 2009 issue of Revista Summa. The deadline 
for the column was December 4, 2009, the same day that the petitioner filed the petition. The 
petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence establishing that the beneficiary actually 
wrote the column. A request to write a column does not equate to actually authoring an article. 
Moreover, based on letter, the requested column appears to be journalistic rather 
than scholarly. Finally, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating 
that Revista Summa is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence of 
the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications 
or other major media." The documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner fails to reflect that 
the beneficiary has authored scholarly articles in her field in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display (If the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The director found that the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary's eligibility for this 
criterion. In counsel's brief, she did not contest the decision of the director or offer additional 
arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned and will not further 
discuss this criterion on appea\. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (lith 
Cir. 2005). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has peiformed in a leading or critical role Fir organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Page 30 
In the director's decision, he found that the petltlOner failed to establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility for this criterion. A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner 
claimed the for this criterion based on her positions 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence that the 
alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation [emphasis added]." In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role 
itself, and a critical role is one in which the alien was responsible for the success or standing of 
the organization or establishment. 
Regardinlg GMCC, the petitioner submitted two letters addressed to the beneficiary from. 
~':12~:""~ the for "to the position of chair of the 
200812009 and 2009120 I O. In 
addition, the petitioner submitted the GMCC Member Handbook that listed the beneficiary as the 
The petitioner also 
submitted a letter from 
who stated that she "found [the beneficiary] to be one of the most active members 
of the Chamber and the Board where she displays her talents in advertising and leads the 
Marketing Committee as the Chairperson." 
While the petitioner established that the beneficiary served as the chairperson and chief 
executive officer for the Marketing Committee, the petitioner failed to establish that 
beneficiary's roles were leading or critical to GMCC as a whole rather than a committee within 
GMCC In fact, the petitioner submitted an organizational chart of the GMCC that listed five 
committees, including the Marketing and Member Services Committee that listed •••••• 
as the chairman. The chart also indicates that the beneficiary, as chair of the Marketing 
.l!!2!:!!!~::!. submitted a document entitled, 
is the chairman of 
there are 34 committee chairmen, in which the 
committees. In addition, the petitioner submitted a document 
that indicates that is the chairman of the 
are 32 committee in which the beneficiary 
one When compared to the roles and 
•••• , the record clearly reflects that the petitioner performed in a subordinate role and is 
not demonstrative of a leading or critical role. Also, the petitioner failed to distinguish the 
beneficiary's role from the 33 or 31 other committee chairs, so as to establish that the petitioner's 
role was leading or critical. Finally, the petitioner failed to submit any independent, objective 
evidence reflecting that GMCC has a distinguished reputation pursuant to the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(viii). 
1.I<"Clll'lJlHOl submitted a letter addressed to the beneficiary from_ 
who welcomed the beneficiary to the association and 
--Page 31 
encouraged her to participate 
addressed to the beneficiary 
who stated: 
We are delighted that you have accepted a leadership positIOn in the Greater 
Miami Chapter of the [NAWBOj, as International Affairs & Communication 
Chairperson. With your expertise in this arena. your participation in our local 
chapter and eventually at the regional and national level will be most welcomed 
and appreciated. 
Finally. the petitioner submitted a screenshot from www.nawbomiami.org that listed the 
beneficiary for the International section within the Greater Miami NA WBO. Based on the 
submitted documentary evidence, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary performed 
in a leading or critical role for NA WBO, let alone for the Greater Miami NA WBO. Clearly, 
when compared to the President of NA WBO, the beneficiary's role in the 
International section of the Greater NA WBO is in a far less role. Even within the Greater Miami 
NA WBO, the petitioner is in a subordinate role when compared to that of who is 
president. In fact, the screenshot lists 10 sections/positions. The petitioner failed to submit any 
documentary evidence comparing the roles of the beneficiary to the other nine sections, so as to 
establish that the beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role. Finally, while the petitioner 
submitted a screenshot from www.nawbomiami.org regarding a brief history of NA WBO, the 
petitioner failed to submit any independent, objective evidence establishing that NA WBO has a 
distinguished reputation. 
Regarding SSF, the petitioner submitted a business card for the beneficiary listing her as "Board 
Advisory." In addition, the petitioner submitted a document regarding the SSF Art Auction in 
which it acknowledged the beneficiary along with 41 other individuals and organizations for 
their contributions to the auction. Moreover, the petitioner submitted the previously discussed 
letter from who indicated that he "selected [the beneficiary J - without any doubt - for 
developing the Fundraising Campaign for the project." The petitioner failed to submit any 
documentary evidence reflecting the roles of the beneficiary as a "Board Advisory," so as to 
demonstrate that she performed in a leading or critical role. Moreover, the AAO is not 
persuaded that developing a one-time fundraising campaign for a single project is reflective of a 
leading or critical as a whole to SSF. As demonstrated the screenshot from SSP s website 
submitted by the petitioner, It appears that 
the beneficiary is in a subordinate role to that of a leading or 
critical role. Finally, the petitioner failed to submit any independent, objective evidence 
demonstrating that SSF has a distinguished reputation. While it appears that SSF is a charitable 
organization dedicated to underprivileged children, the AAO cannot presume that every non­
profit organization has a distinguished reputation. The petitioner failed to submit, for example, 
documentary evidence distinguishing SSF for other charitable organizations, so as to establish 
that it has a distinguished reputation pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(viii). 
Page 32 
Regarding PNN, the petitioner submitted a letter who stated 
that the beneficiary was a "[flounder and an integral part of the main cast of the [PNN]." _ 
_ also described the beneficiary's roles and contributions to PNN from 1984 - 1986, 
including crediting the beneficiary for franchising PNN. also credited the beneficiary 
for the growth of PNN, including the increase of clientele base. Based on_ letter, the 
petitioner established that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role. However, the 
petitioner also submitted a voluminous amount of foreign language documents without any 
English language translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Besides the 
letter fro~ the petitioner failed to submit through independent, objective evidence that 
PNN has a distinguished reputation. The burden is on the petitioner to meet every element of 
this criterion. In this case, while the record reflects that the petitioner performed in a leading or 
critical role for PNN, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that PNN has a distinguished 
reputation. 
beneficiary's role with the petitloner, the petltlOner submitted a letter from 
President, and a profile of the petitioner. Based on a review of the documentary 
evidence, the petitioner established that the beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for 
the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to submit any independent, objective evidence 
demonstrating that it has a distinguished reputation. The petitioner failed to submit, for example, 
any documentary evidence distinguishing it from other marketing and advertising companies. 
There is no evidence that differentiates the petitioner from others in its field, so as to establish 
that it has a distinguished reputation consistent with the plain language of the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence 
that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation [emphasis addedJ." In this case, although the petitioner 
demonstrated that the beneficiary has performed in a leading or critical role for PNN and for the 
petitioner, the petitioner failed to establish that they have a distinguished reputation. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
B. Comparable Evidence 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, counsel argued the beneficiary's eligibility based on 
the submission of recommendation letters as comparable evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that evidence of sustained 
national or international acclaim "shall" include evidence of a one-time achievement or evidence of 
at least three of the following regulation categories. The ten categories in the regulations are 
designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. For 
example, the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) implicitly applies to the visual arts, and the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) expressly applies to the performing arts. The AAO further 
acknowledges that the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) provides "[iJfthe above standards do not 
readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to 
.. 
Page 33 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility." It is clear from the use of the word "shall" in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) that the rule, not the exception, is that the petitioner must submit evidence to meet at 
least three of the regulatory criteria. Thus, it is the petitioner's burden to explain why the regulatory 
criteria are not readily applicable to the beneficiary'S occupation and how the evidence submitted is 
"comparable" to the objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as 
there is no indication that eligibility for visa preference in beneficiary's occupation as a vice 
president in marketing and advertising cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In fact, as indicated in this decision, counsel mentions 
evidence in her brief that specifically addresses eight of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
An inability to meet a criterion, however, is not necessarily evidence that the criterion does not 
apply to the beneficiary's occupation. Moreover, although the petitioner failed to claim this 
additional criterion, the AAO finds that a vice president in marketing and advertising could 
command a high salary pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). Counsel provided 
no documentation as to why this provision of the regulation would not be appropriate to the 
profession of a vice president. 
Where an alien is simply unable to meet or submit documentary evidence of three of these 
criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the 
submission of comparable evidence. The AAO notes that the recommendation letters were 
considered under the original contributions criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) and the leading or critical role criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
C. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the AAO must next conduct a final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has 
demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the[irl field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); 
and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1115. The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met the plain language for any of the 
criteria, in which at least three are required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In this 
case, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already 
been addressed in the preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In evaluating the final merits determination, the AAO must look at the totality of the evidence to 
conclude the beneficiary's eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act. In this case, 
the petitioner has demonstrated that the beneficiary has worked in the advertising and marketing 
field. However, the personal accomplishments of the beneficiary fall far short of establishing that 
she "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor" and 
Page 34 
that she "has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have 
been recognized in the field of expertise." See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[ a1 petition for an alien of extraordinary 
ability must be accompanied by evidence that tbe alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Thc 
weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), therefore, 
depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A 
lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of 
"extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
While the AAO found that the beneficiary failed to meet the awards criterion pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), tbe AAO notes that the petitioner based the beneficiary's 
eligibility, in part, on awards or nominations that were received by organizations that employed 
the beneficiary. In fact, the petitioner submitted documentary evidence establishing that the 
beneficiary won two awards - tbe Latinbiz 2009 Women of Virtue Award and the Proctor 
Gamble Award. Neither award is indicative that the beneficiary "is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Regarding 
the Proctor Gamble Award, there is no indication that the beneficiary faced significant 
competition from throughout her field, rather than mostly limited to a few individuals in student 
status or other similarly limited competition. USC IS has long held tbat even athletes performing 
at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter 
or Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899. 7 Moreover, 
academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. As such, 
academic scholarships, student awards, and fellowships cannot be considered prizes or awards in 
the petitioner's field of endeavor. Competition for scholarships and fellowships is limited to 
7 While the AAO acknowledges that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, the AAO notes 
that in Matter a/Racine, 1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. III. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a 
comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but 
rather, Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is 
consistent with at least one other court in this district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. 
III. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the 
discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the 
court's reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) is 
reasonable. 
Page 35 
other students. Experienced experts do not compete for scholarships or fellowships. Thus, they 
cannot establish that a beneficiary is one of the very few at the top of her field. Significantly, this 
office has held, in a precedent decision involving a lesser classification than the one sought in this 
matter, that academic performance, measured by such criteria as grade point average, is not a 
specific prior achievement that establishes the alien's ability to benefit the national interest. 
Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. at 219, n.6. Thus, academic 
performance is certainly not comparable to the awards criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), designed to demonstrate an alien's eligibility for this more exclusive 
classification. 
Similarly, the petitioner based the beneficiary's eligibility for the membership criterion pursuant 
to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) on the petitioner's membership with the ComVort 
Group rather than the beneficiary's membership. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to 
demonstrate that the beneficiary's membership with the eMarketing Association and the PRSA 
require outstanding achievements of their members, so as to reflect that "her achievements have 
been recognized in the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
Although the AAO found that the beneficiary failed to meet the published material criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the AAO notes that the majority of the 
documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner does not even mention the beneficiary, and the 
few documents that do mention the beneficiary only quote her and are not about her relating to 
her work. The lack of published material about the beneficiary relating to her work fails to 
reflect that the beneficiary "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor." See 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
While the AAO found that the beneficiary failed to meet the judging criterion pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the AAO notes that the petitioner based the beneficiary'S 
eligibility on judging local competitions and aspiring individuals. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
at 954; 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899 (USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major 
league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard). Without evidence 
pre-dating the filing of the petition that sets the beneficiary apart from others in her field, such as 
evidence that she has judged nationally or internationally acclaimed advertisers or marketers, the 
AAO cannot conclude that the beneficiary is among that small percentage who has risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Although the AAO found that the beneficiary failed to meet the original contributions criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the AAO notes that the petitioner failed to 
demonstrate any original contributions of major significance in the field made by the beneficiary. 
Instead, the record reflected routine accomplishments of a successful advertiser or marketer in 
the field. Furthermore, the petitioner submitted recommendation letters that failed to establish 
the significance of the beneficiary's work in the field. It must be emphasized that the favorable 
opinions of expcrts in the field, while not without evidentiary weight, are not a solid basis for a 
successful extraordinary ability claim. Again, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory 
Page 36 
opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 795. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. [d. The submission of letters from 
individuals, especially when they are colleagues of the beneficiary without any prior knowledge 
of the petitioner's work, supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USC IS 
may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. 
at 795-796; see also Matter (!f V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. at 500, n.2. 
While the AAO found that the beneficiary failed to meet the leading or critical role criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the AAO notes that the petitioner 
demonstrated that the beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for PNN and the 
petitioner without establishing that they have distinguished reputations. Evidence of the 
beneficiary'S roles with organizations that have a distinguished reputation is far more persuasive 
that the beneficiary "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Finally, the AAO cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive 
documentation" of the beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for 
aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present 
more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 
30704 (July 5, 1991). Although the AAO found that the beneficiary failed to meet the scholarly 
articles criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the AAO notes that the 
petitioner failed to submit any English translations reflecting that the beneficiary'S blogs were, in 
fact, scholarly articles. Again, the petitioner submitted numerous foreign language documents 
without any English language translations pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The AAO is not persuaded that such evidence that fails to comply with the basic regulatory 
requirements equates to "extensive documentation" and is demonstrative of this highly restrictive 
classification. The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) citing Matter of E-M- 20 I&N Dec. 
77,80 (Comm'r. 1989). 
In this matter, the evidence of record falls short of demonstrating the benficiary's sustained 
national or international acclaim as a vice president in advertising and marketing. The regulation 
at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires "[a] petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be 
accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and this 
his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." While the petitioner 
submitted documentation demonstrating that the beneficiary is active in the advertising and 
marketing field, the documentary evidence is not consistent with or indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
The conclusion the AAO reaches by considering the evidence to meet each category of evidence 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. 
.. ' 
Page 37 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the beneficiary as one of that small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 
petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification for the beneficiary, intended for 
individuals at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the 
top at some unspecified future time. In this case, the petitioner has not established the 
beneficiary's achievements at the time of filing the petition were commensurate with sustained 
national or international acclaim, or that she was among that small percentage at the very top of 
the field of endeavor. 
IV. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished herself to such an 
extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DO}, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.